Chapter IX (2)

(4) _The commission given to the symbolical locusts._ This embraces the following things:――(a) They were not to hurt the grass of the earth, nor any green thing; (b) they were especially to go against those who had not the seal of God in their foreheads; (c) they were not to _kill_ them, but were to _torment_ them. ¶ _They were not to hurt the grass of the earth_, &c. Notes, ver. 4. This agrees remarkably with an express command in the Koran. The often-quoted order of the Caliph Aboubekir, the father-in-law and successor of Mahomet, issued to the Saracen hordes on their invasion of Syria, shows what was understood to be the spirit of their religion: “Remember that you are always in the presence of God, on the verge of death, in the assurance of judgment, and the hope of paradise. Avoid injustice and oppression; consult with your brethren, and study to preserve the love and confidence of your troops. When you fight the battles of the Lord, acquit yourselves like men, without turning your backs; _but let not the victory be stained with the blood of women or children. Destroy no palm-trees, nor burn any fields of corn. Cut down no fruit-trees, nor do any mischief to cattle, only such as you kill to eat._ When you make any covenant or article, stand to it, and be as good as your word. As you go on, you will find some religious persons who live retired in monasteries, and propose to themselves to serve God in that way; let them alone, and _neither kill them_ [‘and to them it was given that they should not kill them,’ ver. 5], nor destroy their monasteries,” &c. (Gibbon, iii. 417, 418). So Mr. Gibbon notices this precept of the Koran: “In the siege of Tayaf,” says he, “sixty miles from Mecca, Mohammed violated _his own laws_ by the extirpation of the fruit-trees,” ii. 392. The same order existed among the Hebrews, and it is not improbable that Mahomet derived his precept from the command of Moses (De. xx. 19), though what was _mercy_ among the Hebrews was probably mere _policy_ with him. This precept is the more remarkable because it has been the usual custom in war, and particularly among barbarians and semi-barbarians, to destroy grain and fruit, and especially to cut down fruit-trees, in order to do greater injury to an enemy. Thus we have seen (Notes on ch. viii. 7), that in the invasion of the Goths their course was marked by desolations of this kind. Thus, in more modern times, it has been common to carry the desolations of war into gardens, orchards, and vineyards. In the single province of Upper Messenia the troops of Mahomet Ali, in the war with Greece, cut down half a million of olive-trees, and thus stripped the country of its means of wealth. So Scio was a beautiful spot, the seat of delightful villas, and gardens, and orchards; and in one day all this beauty was destroyed. On the supposition, therefore, that this prediction had reference to the Saracens, nothing could be more appropriate. Indeed, in all the history of barbarous and savage warfare it would be difficult to find another distinct command that no injury should be done to gardens and orchards. (d) Their commission was expressly against “those men who had not the seal of God in their foreheads.” See Notes on ver. 4. That is, they were to go either against those who were not _really_ the friends of God, or those who _in their estimation_ were not. Perhaps, if there were nothing in the connection to demand a different interpretation, the former would be the most natural explanation of the passage; but the language _may be_ understood as referring to the purpose which they considered themselves as called upon to execute: that is, that they were to go against those whom they regarded as being strangers to the true God, to wit, idolaters. Now it is well known that Mahomet considered himself called upon, principally, to make war with idolaters, and that he went forth, professedly, to bring them into subjection to the service of the true God. “The means of persuasion,” says Mr. Gibbon, “had been tried, the season of forbearance was elapsed, and he was now commanded to propagate his religion by the sword, to destroy the monuments of idolatry, and, without regarding the sanctity of days or months, to pursue the unbelieving nations of the earth,” iii. 387. “The fair option of friendship, or submission, or battle, was proposed to the enemies of Mahomet” (_ibid._). “The sword,” says Mahomet, “is the key of heaven and hell; a drop of blood shed in the cause of God, a night spent in arms, is of more avail than two months of fasting and prayer: whosoever falls in battle, his sins are forgiven; at the day of judgment his wounds shall be resplendent {222} as vermilion, and odoriferous as musk; and the loss of his limbs shall be supplied by the wings of angels and cherubim” (Gibbon, iii. 387). The first conflicts waged by Mahomet were against the _idolaters_ of his own country――those who can, on no supposition, be regarded as “having the seal of God in their foreheads;” his subsequent wars were against _infidels_ of all classes; that is, against those whom he regarded as not having the “seal of God in their foreheads,” or as being the enemies of God. (e) The other part of the commission was “not to kill, but to torment them.” Notes, ver. 5. Compare the quotation from the command of Aboubekir, as quoted above: “Let not the victory be stained with the blood of women and children.” “Let them alone, and neither kill them nor destroy their monasteries.” The meaning of this, if understood as applied to their commission against Christendom, would seem to be, that they were not to go forth to “kill,” but to “torment” them; to wit, by the calamities which they would bring upon Christian nations for a definite period. Indeed, as we have seen above, it was an express command of Aboubekir that they should not put those to death who were found leading quiet and peaceable lives in monasteries, though against another class he _did_ give an express command to “cleave their skulls.” See Gibbon, iii. 418. As applicable to the conflicts of the Saracens with Christians, the meaning here would seem to be, that the power conceded to those who are represented by the locusts was not to cut off and to destroy the church, but it was to bring upon it various calamities to continue for a definite period. Accordingly, some of the severest afflictions which have come upon the church have undoubtedly proceeded from the followers of the Prophet of Mecca. There were times in the early history of that religion when, to all human appearance, it would universally prevail, and wholly supplant the Christian church. But the church still survived, and no power was at any time given to the Saracenic hosts to destroy it altogether. In respect to this, some remarkable facts have occurred in history. The followers of the false prophet contemplated the subjugation of Europe, and the destruction of Christianity, from two quarters――the East and the West――expecting to make a junction of the two armies in the north of Italy, and to march down to Rome. Twice did they attack the _vital_ part of Christendom by besieging Constantinople: first, in the seven years’ siege, which lasted from A.D. 668 to A.D. 675; and, secondly, in the years 716‒718, when Leo the Isaurian was on the imperial throne. But on both occasions they were obliged to retire defeated and disgraced.――Gibbon, iii. 461, seq. Again, they renewed their attack on the West. Having conquered Northern Africa, they passed over into Spain, subdued that country and Portugal, and extended their conquests as far as the Loire. At that time they designed to subdue France, and having united with the forces which they expected from the East, they intended to make a descent on Italy, and complete the conquest of Europe. This purpose was defeated by the valour of Charles Martel, and Europe and the Christian world were saved from subjugation (Gibbon, iii. 467, seq.). “A victorious line of march,” says Mr. Gibbon, “had been prolonged above a thousand miles, from the rock of Gibraltar to the banks of the Loire; the repetition of an equal space would have carried the Saracens to the confines of Poland and the Highlands of Scotland. The Rhine is not more impassable than the Nile or the Euphrates, and the Arabian fleet might have sailed without a naval combat into the mouth of the Thames. Perhaps the interpretation of the Koran would now be taught in the schools of Oxford, and her pulpits might demonstrate to a circumcised people the sanctity and truth of the revelations of Mohammed.” The arrest of the Saracen hosts before Europe was subdued, was what there was no reason to anticipate, and it even yet perplexes historians to be able to account for it. “The calm historian,” says Mr. Gibbon, “who strives to follow the rapid course of the Saracens, must study to explain by what means the church and state were saved from this impending, and, as it should seem, inevitable danger.” “These conquests,” says Mr. Hallam, “which astonish the careless and superficial, are less perplexing to a calm inquirer than their cessation――the loss of half the Roman empire than the preservation of the rest” (_Middle Ages_, ii. 3, 169). These illustrations may serve to explain the meaning of the symbol――that their {223} grand commission was not to annihilate or root out, but to annoy and afflict. Indeed, they did not go forth with a primary design to _destroy_. The announcement of the Mussulman always was “the Koran, the tribute, or the sword,” and when there was submission, either by embracing his religion or by tribute, life was always spared. “The fair option of friendship, or submission, or battle, ” says Mr. Gibbon (iii. 387), “was proposed to the enemies of Mohammed. ” Comp. also vol. iii. 453, 456. The _torment_ mentioned here, I suppose, refers to the calamities brought upon the Christian world――on Egypt, and Northern Africa, and Spain, and Gaul, and the East――by the hordes which came out of Arabia, and which swept over all those countries like a troublesome and destructive host of locusts. Indeed, would _any_ image better represent the effects of the Saracenic invasions than such a countless host of locusts? Even now, can we find an image that would better represent this?

(5) _The leader of this host._ (a) He was like a star that fell from heaven, (ver. 1), a bright and illustrious prince, _as if_ heaven-endowed, but fallen. Would anything better characterize the genius, the power, and the splendid but perverted talent of Mahomet? Mahomet was, moreover, by birth, of the princely house of the Koreish, governors of Mecca, and to no one could the term be more appropriate than to one of that family. (b) He was a king. That is, there was to be one monarch――one ruling spirit to which all these hosts were subject. And never was anything more appropriate than this title as applied to the leader of the Arabic hosts. All those hosts were subject to one mind――to the command of the single leader that originated the scheme. (c) The name _Abaddon_, or _Apollyon_――_Destroyer_, ver. 11. This name would be appropriate to one who spread his conquests so far over the world; who wasted so many cities and towns; who overthrew so many kingdoms; and who laid the foundation of ultimate conquests by which so many human beings were sent to the grave. (d) The description of the leader “as the angel of the bottomless pit,” ver. 11. If this be regarded as meaning that “the angel of the bottomless pit”――the spirit of darkness himself――originated the scheme, and animated these hosts, what term would better characterize the leader? And if it be a poetic description of Mahomet as sent out by that presiding spirit of evil, how could a better representative of the spirit of the nether world have been sent out upon the earth than he was――one more talented, more sagacious, more powerful, more warlike, more wicked, more fitted to subdue the nations of the earth to the dominion of the Prince of Darkness, and to hold them for ages under his yoke?

(6) _The duration of the torment._ It is said (ver. 5) that this would be five months; that is, prophetically, a hundred and fifty years. See Notes on ver. 5. The Hegira, or flight of Mahomet, occurred A.D. 622; the Saracens first issued from the desert into Syria, and began their series of wars on Christendom, A.D. 629. Reckoning from these periods respectively, the five months, or the hundred and fifty years, would extend to A.D. 772 or 779. It is not necessary to understand this period of a hundred and fifty years of the actual continued existence of the bodies symbolized by the locusts, but only of the period in which they would inflict their “torment”――“that they should be tormented five months.” That is, this would be the period of the _intensity_ of the woe inflicted by them; there would be at that time some marked intermission of the torrent. The question then is, whether, in the history of the Saracens, there was any period after their career of conquest had been continued for about a hundred and fifty years, which would mark the intermission or cessation of these “torments.” If so, then this is all that is necessary to determine the applicability of the symbol to the Arabian hordes. Now, in reply to this question, we have only to refer to Mr. Gibbon. The table of contents prefixed to chapters forty-one and forty-two of his work would supply all the information desired. I looked at that table, after making the estimate as to what period the “five months,” or hundred and fifty years, would conduct us to, to see whether anything occurred at about that time in the Mahometan power and influence, which could be regarded as marking the time of the intermission or cessation of the calamities inflicted by the Arabic hordes on the Christian world. After Mr. Gibbon had recorded in detail (vol. iii. 360‒460) the character and conquests of the Arabian {224} hordes under Mahomet and his successors, I find the statement of the decline of their power at just about the period to which the hundred and fifty years would lead us, for at that very time an important change came over the followers of the prophet of Mecca, turning them from the love of conquest to the pursuits of literature and science. From that period they ceased to be formidable to the church; their limits were gradually contracted; their power diminished; and the Christian world, in regard to them, was substantially at peace. This change in the character and purposes of the Saracens is thus described by Mr. Gibbon, at the close of the reign of the caliph Abdalrahman, whose reign commenced A.D. 755, and under whom the _peaceful_ sway of the Ommiades of Spain began, which continued for a period of two hundred and fifty years. “The luxury of the caliphs, so useless to their private happiness, relaxed the nerves, and terminated the progress, of the Arabian empire. Temporal and spiritual conquest had been the sole occupation of the first successors of Mahomet; and after supplying themselves with the necessaries of life, the whole revenue was scrupulously devoted to that salutary work. The Abassides were impoverished by the multitude of their wants, and their contempt of economy. Instead of pursuing the great object of ambition, their leisure, their affections, and the powers of their minds were diverted by pomp and pleasure: the rewards of valour were embezzled by women and eunuchs, and the royal camp was encumbered by the luxury of the palace. A similar temper was diffused among the subjects of the caliph. Their stern enthusiasm was softened by time and prosperity: they sought riches in the occupations of industry, fame in the pursuits of literature, and happiness in the tranquillity of domestic life. War was no longer the passion of the Saracens; and the increase of pay, the repetition of donatives, were insufficient to allure the posterity of those voluntary champions who had crowded to the standard of Aboubekir and Omar for the hopes of spoil and of paradise,” iii. 477, 478. Of the Ommiades, or princes who succeeded Abdalrahman, Mr. Gibbon remarks in general――“Their mutual designs or declarations of war evaporated without effect; but instead of opening a door to the conquest of Europe, Spain was dissevered from the trunk of the monarchy, engaged in perpetual hostility with the East, _and inclined to peace and friendship with the Christian sovereigns of Constantinople and France_,” iii. p. 472. How much does this look like some change occurring by which they would cease to be a source of “torment” to the nations with whom they now dwelt! From this period they gave themselves to the arts of peace; cultivated literature and science; lost entirely their spirit of conquest, and their ambition for universal dominion, until they gradually withdrew, or were driven, from those parts of the Christian world where they had inspired most terror, and which in the days of their power and ambition they had invaded. By turning merely to the “table of contents” of Mr. Gibbon’s history, the following periods, occurring at about the time that would be embraced in the “five months,” or hundred and fifty years, are distinctly marked:――

“A.D.
668‒675. First siege of Constantinople by the Arabs.
677. Peace and tribute.
716‒718. Second siege of Constantinople.
” Failure and retreat of the Saracens.
” Invention and use of the Greek fire.
721. Invasion of France by the Arabs.
732. Defeat of the Saracens by Charles Martel.
” They retreat before the Franks.
746‒750. The elevation of the Abassides.
750. Fall of the Ommiades.
755. Revolt of Spain.
” Triple division of the caliphate.
750‒960. Magnificence of the caliphs.
” Its consequences on private and public happiness.
754, &c. Introduction of learning among the Arabians.
” Their real progress in the sciences.”

It will be seen from this that the decline of their military and civil power; their defeats in their attempts to subjugate Europe; their turning their attention to the peaceful pursuits of literature and science, synchronize remarkably with the period that would be indicated by the five months, or the hundred and fifty years. It should be added, also, that in the year 762, Almanzor, the caliph, built Bagdad, and made it the capital of the Saracen empire. Henceforward that became the seat of Arabic learning, luxury, and power, and the wealth and talent of the Saracen empire were gradually drawn to that capital, and they ceased to vex and annoy the Christian world. The {225} building of Bagdad occurred within just ten years of the time indicated by the “five months”――reckoning that from the Hegira, or flight of Mahomet; or reckoning from the time when Mahomet began to preach (A.D. 609――Gibbon, iii. 383), it wanted but three years of coinciding exactly with the period.

These considerations show with what propriety the fifth trumpet――the symbol of the locusts――is referred to the Arabian hordes under the guidance of Mahomet and his successors. On the supposition that it was the design of John to symbolize these events, the symbol has been chosen which of all others was best adapted to the end. If, now that these events are past, we should endeavour to find some symbol which would appropriately represent them, we could not find one that would be more striking or appropriate than that which is here employed by John.

12 One[298] woe is past; _and_, behold, there come two woes
more hereafter.

12. _One woe is past._ The _woe_ referred to in ver. 1‒11. In ch. viii. 13 three woes are mentioned which were to occur successively, and which were to embrace the whole of the period comprised in the seven seals and the seven trumpets. Under the last of the seals we have considered four successive periods, referring to events connected with the downfall of the Western empire; and then we have found one important event worthy of a place in noticing the things which would permanently affect the destiny of the world――the rise, the character, and the conquests of the Saracens. This was referred to by the first _woe-trumpet_. We enter now on the consideration of the second. This occupies the remainder of the chapter, and in illustrating it the same method will be pursued as heretofore: first, to explain the literal meaning of the words, phrases, and symbols; and then to inquire what events in history, if any, succeeding the former, occurred, which would correspond with the language used. ¶ _|And|, behold, there come two woes more hereafter_. Two momentous and important events that will be attended with sorrow to mankind. It cannot be intended that there would be no _other_ evils that would visit mankind; but the eye, in glancing along the future, rested on these as having a special pre-eminence in affecting the destiny of the church and the world.

13 And the sixth angel sounded, and I heard a voice from the
four horns of the golden altar which is before God,

13. _And the sixth angel sounded._ See Notes on ch. viii. 2, 7. ¶ _And I heard a voice from the four horns of the golden altar which is before God._ In the _language_ here used there is an allusion to the temple, but the scene is evidently laid in heaven. The temple in its arrangements was designed, undoubtedly, to be in important respects a symbol of heaven, and this idea constantly occurs in the Scriptures. Comp. the Epistle to the Hebrews _passim_. The golden altar stood in the holy place, between the table of show-bread and the golden candlestick. See Notes on He. ix. 1, 2. This altar, made of shittim or acacia wood, was ornamented at the four corners, and overlaid throughout with laminæ of gold. Hence it was called “the golden altar,” in contradistinction from the altar for sacrifice, which was made of stone. Comp. Notes on Mat. xxi. 12, seq. On its four corners it had projections which are called _horns_ (Ex. xxx. 2, 3), which seem to have been intended mainly for ornaments. See Jahn, _Arch._ § 332; Joseph. _Ant._ iii. 6, 8. When it is said that this was “before God,” the meaning is, that it was directly before or in front of the symbol of the divine presence in the most holy place. This image, in the vision of John, is transformed to heaven. The voice seemed to come from the very presence of the Deity; from the place where offerings are made to God.

14 Saying to the sixth angel, which had the trumpet, Loose the
four angels which are bound in the great river [299]Euphrates.

14. _Saying to the sixth angel, which had the trumpet._ Notes, ch. viii. 2. ¶ _Loose_, &c. This power, it would seem, was given to the sixth angel in addition to his office of blowing the trumpet. All this, of course, was in vision, and cannot be literally interpreted. The meaning is, that the effect of his blowing the trumpet would be the same _as if_ angels that had been bound should be suddenly loosed and suffered to go forth over the earth; that is, some event would occur which would be properly symbolized by {226} such an act. ¶ _The four angels._ Comp. Notes, ch. viii. 2. It was customary to represent important events as occurring under the ministry of angels. The general meaning here is, that in the vicinity of the river Euphrates there were mighty powers which had been bound or held in check, which were now to be let loose upon the world. What we are to look for in the fulfilment is evidently this――some power that seemed to be kept back by an invisible influence as if by angels, now suddenly let loose and suffered to accomplish the purpose of desolation mentioned in the subsequent verses. It is not necessary to suppose that angels were actually employed in these restraints, though no one can demonstrate that their agency was _not_ concerned in the transactions here referred to. Comp. Notes on Da. x. 12, 13. It has been made a question why the number _four_ is specified, and whether the forces were in any sense made up of four divisions, nations, or people. While nothing certain can be determined in regard to that, and while the number four _may_ be used merely to denote a great and strong force, yet it must be admitted that the most obvious interpretation would be to refer it to some combination of forces, or to some union of powers, that was to accomplish what is here said. If it had been a single nation, it would have been more in accordance with the usual method in prophecy to have represented them as restrained by an angel, or by angels in general, without specifying any number. ¶ _Which are bound._ That is, they _seemed_ to be bound. There was something which held them, and the forces under them, in check, until they were thus commanded to go forth. In the fulfilment of this it will be necessary to look for something of the nature of a check or restraint on these forces, until they were commissioned to go forth to accomplish the work of destruction. ¶ _In the great river Euphrates._ The well-known river of that name, commonly called, in the Scriptures, “the great river,” and, by way of eminence, “_the_ river,” Ex. xxiii. 31; Is. viii. 7. This river was on the east of Palestine; and the language here used naturally denotes that the power referred to under the sixth trumpet would spring up in the East, and that it would have its origin in the vicinity of that river. Those interpreters, therefore, who apply this to the invasion of Judæa by the Romans have great difficulty in explaining this――as the forces employed in the destruction of Jerusalem came from the West, and not from the East. The fair interpretation is, that there were forces in the vicinity of the Euphrates which were, up to this period, bound or restrained, but which were now suffered to spread woe and sorrow over a considerable portion of the world.

15 And the four angels were loosed, which were prepared
[300]for an hour, and a day, and a month, and a year, for to
[301]slay the third part of men.

15. _And the four angels were loosed._ Who had this mighty host under restraint. The loosening of the angels was, in fact, also a letting loose of all these hosts, that they might accomplish the work which they were commissioned to do. ¶ _Which were prepared._ See ver. 7. The word here used properly refers to that which is made ready, fitted up, arranged for anything: as persons prepared for a journey, horses for battle, a road for travellers, food for the hungry, a house to live in, &c. See Rob. _Lex._, sub. voce Ἑτοιμάζω. As used here, the word means that whatever was necessary to _prepare_ these angels――the leaders of this host――for the work which they were commissioned to perform, was now done, and that they stood in a state of readiness to execute the design. In the fulfilment of this it will be necessary to look for some arrangements existing in the vicinity of the Euphrates, by which these restrained hosts were _in a state of readiness_ to be summoned forth to the execution of this work, or in such a condition that they _would_ go forth spontaneously if the restraints existing were removed. ¶ _For an hour_, &c. Marg., _at_. The Greek――εἰς――means properly _unto_, _with reference to_; and the sense is, that, with reference to that hour, they had all the requisite preparation. Professor Stuart explains it as meaning that they were “prepared for the particular year, month, day, and hour, destined by God for the great catastrophe which is to follow.” The meaning, however, rather seems to be that they were prepared, not for the _commencement_ of such a period, but they were prepared for _the whole period_ indicated by the hour, the day, the month, and the year; that is, {227} that the continuance of this “woe” would extend along through the whole period. For (a) this is the natural interpretation of the word “for”――εἰς; (b) it makes the whole sentence intelligible――for though it might be proper to say of anything that it was “prepared for an hour,” indicating the commencement of what was to be done, it is not usual to say of anything that it is “prepared for an hour, a month, a day, a year,” when the design is merely to indicate the _beginning_ of it; and (c) it is in accordance with the prediction respecting the first “woe” (ver. 5), where the time is specified in language similar to this, to wit, “five months.” It seems to me, therefore, that we are to regard the time here mentioned as a prophetic indication of the period during which this woe would continue. ¶ _An hour, and a day, and a month, and a year._ If this were to be taken literally, it would, of course, be but little more than a year. If it be taken, however, in the common prophetic style, where a day is put for a year (see Notes on Da. ix. 24, seq.; also Editor’s Preface, p. xxv. &c.), then the amount of time (360 + 30 + 1 + an hour) would be three hundred and ninety-one years, and the portion of a year indicated by an hour――a twelfth or twenty-fourth part, according as the day was supposed to be divided into twelve or twenty-four hours. That this is the true view seems to be clear, because this accords with the usual style in this book; because it can hardly be supposed that the “preparation” here referred to would have been for so brief a period as the time would be if literally interpreted; and because the mention of so small a portion of time as an “hour,” if literally taken, would be improbable in so great transactions. The fair interpretation, therefore, will require us to find some events that will fill up the period of about three hundred and ninety-one years. ¶ _For to slay the third part of men._ Comp. ch. viii. 7, 9, 12. The meaning here is, that the immense host which was restrained on the Euphrates would, when loosed, spread desolation over about a third part of the world. We are not to suppose that this is to be understood in exactly a literal sense; but the meaning is, that the desolation would be so widespread that it would seem to embrace a third of the world. No such event as the cutting off of a few thousands of Jews in the siege of Jerusalem would correspond with the language here employed, and we must look for events more general and more disastrous to mankind at large.

16 And the number of the [302]army of the horsemen _were_
[303]two hundred thousand thousand: and [304]I heard the
number of them.

16. _And the number of the army of the horsemen._ It is to be observed here that the strength of the army seemed to be cavalry. In the former plagues there is no distinct mention of horsemen; but here that which struck the beholder was the immense and unparalleled number of horsemen. ¶ _|Were| two hundred thousand thousand._ A thousand thousand are a million, and consequently the number here referred to would be two hundred millions. This would be a larger army than was ever assembled, and it cannot be supposed that it is to be taken literally. That it would be a very large host――so large that it would not be readily numbered――is clear. The expression in the original, while it naturally conveys the idea of an immense number, would seem also to refer to some peculiarity in the manner of reckoning them. The language is, _two myriads of myriads_――δύο μυριάδες μυριάδων. The myriad was ten thousand. The idea would seem to be this. John saw an immense host of cavalry. They appeared to be divided into large bodies that were in some degree separate, and that might be reckoned by ten thousands. Of these different squadrons there were many, and to express their great and unusual numbers he said that there seemed to be _myriads_ of them――two myriads of myriads, or twice ten thousand myriads. The army thus would seem to be immense――an army, as we should say, to be reckoned _by tens of thousands_. ¶ _And I heard the number of them._ They were so numerous that he did not pretend to be able to estimate the number himself, for it was beyond his power of computation; but he heard it stated in these round numbers, that there were “two myriads of myriads” of them.

17 And thus I saw the horses in the vision, and them that
sat on them, having breastplates of fire, and of jacinth,
and brimstone: and the heads of the horses _were_ as [305]the
heads of lions: and out of their mouths issued fire and smoke
and brimstone.

17. _And thus I saw the horses in the {228} vision_. That is, he saw them as he proceeds to describe them, for the word _thus_――οὕτως――refers to what follows. Comp. Rob. _Lex._ on the word, (b), and see Mat. i. 18; ii. 5; Jn. xxi. 1; He. iv. 4. Professor Stuart, however, refers to what precedes. The meaning, as it seems to me, is, that he fixed his attention on the appearance of the immense army――the horses and their riders, and proceeded to describe them as they struck him. ¶ _And them that sat on them._ He fixed the attention on horse and rider. Their appearance was unusual, and deserved a particular description. ¶ _Having breastplates of fire._ That is, those who sat on them had such breastplates. The word here rendered breastplate denoted properly a coat of mail that covered the body from the neck to the thighs. See Notes on Ep. vi. 14. This would be a prominent object in looking at a horseman. This was said to be composed of “fire, and jacinth, and brimstone;” that is, the part of the body usually incased in the coat of mail had these three colours. The word “fire” here simply denotes _red_. It was burnished and bright, and seemed to be a blaze of fire. The word “jacinth”――ὑακινθίνους――means hyacinthine. The colour denoted is that of the hyacinth――a flower of a deep purple or reddish blue. Then it refers to a gem of the same colour, nearly related to the _zircon_ of the mineralogists, and the colour here mentioned is deep purple or reddish blue. The word rendered “brimstone”――θειώδης――means properly sulphurous, that is, made of sulphur, and means here simply _yellow_. The meaning of the whole then is, that these horsemen appeared to be clad in a peculiar kind of armour――armour that shone like fire, mingled with blue and yellow. It will be necessary to look for the fulfilment of this in cavalry that was so caparisoned. ¶ _And the heads of the horses |were| as the heads of lions._ Resembled, in some respects, the heads of lions. He does not say that they _were_ the heads of lions, or that the riders were on monsters, but only that they, in some respects, _resembled_ the heads of lions. It would be easy to give this general appearance by the way in which the head-dress of the horses was arrayed. ¶ _And out of their mouths issued._ That is, _appeared_ to issue. It is not necessary to understand this as affirming that it actually came from their _mouths_, but only that, to one looking on such an approaching army, it would have this _appearance_. The heathen poets often speak of horses breathing out fire and smoke (Virg. _Geor._ vol. ii. p. 140; iii. 85; Ovid, _Met._ vol. vii. p. 104), meaning that their _breath_ seemed to be mingled smoke and fire. There is an image superadded here not found in any of the classic descriptions, that this was mingled with _brimstone_. All this _seemed_ to issue from their mouths――that is, it was breathed forth in front of the host, as if the horses emitted it from their mouths. ¶ _Fire and smoke and brimstone._ The _exact_ idea, whether that was intended or not, would be conveyed by the discharge of musketry or artillery. The fire, the smoke, and the sulphurous smell of such a discharge would correspond precisely with this language; and if it be supposed that the writer _meant_ to describe such a discharge, this would be the very language that would be used. Moreover, in describing a battle nothing would be more proper than to say that this _appeared_ to issue from the horses’ mouths. If, therefore, it should be found that there were any events where firearms were used, in contradistinction from the ancient mode of warfare, this _language_ would be appropriate to describe that; and if it were ascertained that the writer meant to refer to some such fact, then the language here used would be that which he would adopt. One thing is certain, that this is _not_ language which would be employed to describe the onset of ancient cavalry in the mode of warfare which prevailed then. No one describing a charge of cavalry among the Persians, the Greeks, or the Romans, when the only armour was the sword and the spear, would think of saying that there seemed to be emitted from the horses’ mouths fire, and smoke, and brimstone.

18 By these three was the third part of men killed, by the
fire, and by the smoke, and by the brimstone, which issued out
of their mouths.

18. _By these three._ Three things――explained {229} immediately as referring to the fire, the smoke, and the brimstone. ¶ _Was the third part of men killed._ See Notes on ch. viii. 7‒12, on each of which verses we have notices of calamities that came upon the third part of the race, of the sea, of rivers, &c. We are not to suppose that this is to be taken literally, but the description is given as it _appeared_ to John. Those immense numbers of horsemen would sweep over the world, and a full third part of the race of men would seem to fall before them.

19 For their power is in their mouth, and in their tails: for
[306]their tails _were_ like unto serpents, and had heads, and
with them they do hurt.

19. _For their power is in their mouth._ That is, as described in the fire, smoke, and brimstone that proceeded out of their mouths. What struck the seer as remarkable on looking on the symbol was, that this immense destruction seemed to proceed out of their mouths. It was not that they trampled down their enemies; nor that they destroyed them with the sword, the bow, or the spear: it was some new and remarkable power in warfare――in which the destruction seemed to proceed from fire, and smoke, and sulphur issuing from the mouths of the horses themselves. ¶ _And in their tails._ The tails of the horses. This, of course, was something unusual and remarkable in horses, for naturally they have no power there. The power of a fish, or a scorpion, or a wasp, may be said to be in their tails, for their strength or their means of defence or of injury are there; but we never think of speaking in this way of horses. It is not necessary, in the interpretation of this, to suppose that the reference is literally to the tails of the horses, any more than it is to suppose that the smoke, and fire, and brimstone literally proceeded from their mouths. John describes things as they _appeared_ to him in looking at them from a considerable distance. From their mouths the horses belched forth fire, and smoke, and sulphur, and even their tails seemed to be armed for the work of death. ¶ _For their tails |were| like unto serpents._ Not like the tails of serpents, but like serpents themselves. ¶ _And had heads._ That is, there was something remarkable in the position and appearance of their _heads_. All serpents, of course, have heads; but John saw something unusual in this――or something so peculiar in their heads as to attract special attention. It would seem most probable that the heads of these serpents appeared to extend in every direction――as if the hairs of the horses’ tails had been converted into snakes, presenting a most fearful and destructive image. Perhaps it may illustrate this to suppose that there is reference to the Amphisbæna, or two-headed snake. It is said of this reptile that its tail resembles a head, and that with this it throws out its poison (Lucan, vol. ix. p. 179; Pliny’s _Hist. Nat._ vol. viii. p. 35). It really has but one head, but its tail has the appearance of a head, and it has the power of moving in either direction to a limited degree. If we suppose these snakes fastened to the tail of a horse, the appearance of _heads_ would be very prominent and remarkable. The image is that of the power of destruction. They seemed like ugly and poisonous serpents instead of tails. ¶ _And with them they do hurt._ Not the main injury, but they have the power of inflicting _some_ injury by them.

20 And the rest of the men which were not killed by these
plagues, [307]yet repented not of the works of their hands,
that they should not [308]worship devils, and [309]idols of
gold, and silver, and brass, and stone, and of wood: which
neither can see, nor hear, nor walk.

21 Neither repented they of their murders, nor of their
[310]sorceries, nor of their fornication, nor of their thefts.

20, 21. _And the rest of the men which were not killed by these plagues_, &c. One third part is represented as swept off, and it might have been expected that a salutary effect would have been produced on the remainder, in reforming them, and restraining them from error and sin. The writer proceeds to state, however, that these judgments did _not_ have the effect which might {230} reasonably have been anticipated. No reformation followed; there was no abandonment of the prevailing forms of iniquity; there was no change in their idolatry and superstition. In regard to the _exact_ meaning of what is here stated (ver. 20, 21), it will be a more convenient arrangement to consider it _after_ we have ascertained the proper application of the passage relating to the sixth trumpet. What is here stated (ver. 20, 21) pertains to the state of the world _after_ the desolations which would occur under this woe-trumpet; and the explanation of the words may be reserved, therefore, with propriety, until the inquiry shall have been instituted as to the general design of the whole.

With respect to the fulfilment of this symbol――the sixth trumpet――it will be necessary to inquire whether there has been any event, or class of events, occurring at such a time, and in such a manner, as would be properly denoted by such a symbol. The examination of this question will make it necessary to go over the leading points _in_ the symbol, and to endeavour to apply them. In doing this I shall simply state, with such illustrations as may occur, what seems to me to have been the design of the symbol. It would be an endless task to examine all the explanations which have been proposed, and it would be useless to do so.

The reference, then, seems to me to be to the Turkish power, extending from the time of the first appearance of the Turks in the neighbourhood of the Euphrates, to the final conquest of Constantinople in 1453. The general reasons for this opinion are such as the following:――(a) If the previous trumpet referred to the Saracens, or to the rise of the Mahometan power among the Arabs, then the Turkish dominion, being the next in succession, would be that which would most naturally be symbolized. (b) The Turkish power rose on the decline of the Arabic, and was the next important power in affecting the destinies of the world. (c) This power, like the former, had its seat in the East, and would be properly classified under the events occurring there as affecting the destiny of the world. (d) The introduction of this power was _necessary_, in order to complete the survey of the downfall of the Roman empire――the great object kept in view all along in these symbols. In the first four of these trumpets, under the seventh seal, we found the decline and fall of the _Western_ empire; in the first of the remaining three――the fifth in order――we found the rise of the Saracens, materially affecting the condition of the _Eastern_ portion of the Roman world; and the notice of the Turks, under whom the empire at last fell to rise no more, seemed to be demanded in order to the completion of the picture. As a leading design of the whole vision was to describe the ultimate destiny of that formidable power――the Roman――which, in the time when the Revelation was given to John, ruled over the whole world; under which the church was then oppressed; and which, either as a civil or ecclesiastical power, was to exert so important an influence on the destiny of the church, it was proper that its history should be sketched until it ceased――that is, until the conquest of the capital of the Eastern empire by the Turks. Here the termination of the empire, as traced by Mr. Gibbon, closes; and these events it was important to incorporate in this series of visions.